I was a part timer on heart rate monitoring and was always freaked by it. My resting heart rate is in the low 50's but I'd be up in the 170s in no time. I think it's only useful if you understand it well and try to train to it rather than looking at it after.

When I was rowing we did a lot of physiological testing including taking blood and measuring the levels of lactate in it. We also did a max output test which was basically going flat out til collapse to see what you heart rate was.

Basically we used this and the associated heart rates to set training zones.

Most of our training was in what they call UT2 zone. This is basically your aerobic area, so you can train at this rate and not actually feel much. It allows your muscles to grow the amount of blood flow thus meaning you recover better as you're working at a level where you can take in oxygen to feed the muscles. So we would do 60-90 minutes on the rowing machine 4 times a week in this zone which was about 125-145 BPM depending on the blood tests and max HR above.

We then had what they called UT which we did maybe twice a week and this was to push your thresholds of lactate up, so it was normally about heart rate 145-160. This is where you start of using your aerobic system then as you go longer it goes into anaerobic. The point of this is that you push back the stage at which you go into anaerobic and using the finite levels of energy in your muscles.

Then there was Anaerobic Threshold. This is when your muscles burn off the energy and you go into the reserves cos you're not getting oxygen into them quick enough. This would be you working at your HR max or almost up to it, so maybe 170-180. You don't really want to go here very often.

enemies/friends wrote:When I was rowing we did a lot of physiological testing including taking blood and measuring the levels of lactate in it. We also did a max output test which was basically going flat out til collapse to see what you heart rate was.

Basically we used this and the associated heart rates to set training zones.

Most of our training was in what they call UT2 zone. This is basically your aerobic area, so you can train at this rate and not actually feel much. It allows your muscles to grow the amount of blood flow thus meaning you recover better as you're working at a level where you can take in oxygen to feed the muscles. So we would do 60-90 minutes on the rowing machine 4 times a week in this zone which was about 125-145 BPM depending on the blood tests and max HR above.

We then had what they called UT which we did maybe twice a week and this was to push your thresholds of lactate up, so it was normally about heart rate 145-160. This is where you start of using your aerobic system then as you go longer it goes into anaerobic. The point of this is that you push back the stage at which you go into anaerobic and using the finite levels of energy in your muscles.

Then there was Anaerobic Threshold. This is when your muscles burn off the energy and you go into the reserves cos you're not getting oxygen into them quick enough. This would be you working at your HR max or almost up to it, so maybe 170-180. You don't really want to go here very often.

If, say, I wanted to aim for 15km in 90mins, which is 10kmph.
Would I be better off running at an average rate of 10kmph as much as I could and gradually increasing the distance.
Or would I be better off running for 90mins at 8.5 or whatever and gradually increasing the pace?

Also, I saw I guy in the gym yesterday run for about 45 mins in a polo t-shirt, jeans and loafers.

I'd say gradually build up to being able to run that distance without stopping first, then hit goals on the way up to it. Say, be able to run 15k without stopping (at whatever pace). Once you've done that, then focus on times; try and hit 5k in 30 minutes, then 10k in 60 minutes, then 15k in 90 minutes.

It's only ok I guess. Depends on your standard, obviously.
I ran 10km in an hour the other day for the first time in my life.
But I felt my progress to that point was very, very slow (15-20 fags a day doesn't help).

Up until a few weeks ago, I was maintaining a 10kmph average and going as far as I could.
in the last two weeks I started going slower for longer.
I'll work on distance then time, nice one.

shivo wrote:What's the best approach for achiveving a certain running goal?

If, say, I wanted to aim for 15km in 90mins, which is 10kmph.
Would I be better off running at an average rate of 10kmph as much as I could and gradually increasing the distance.
Or would I be better off running for 90mins at 8.5 or whatever and gradually increasing the pace?

Also, I saw I guy in the gym yesterday run for about 45 mins in a polo t-shirt, jeans and loafers.

I've been combining the two approaches.

Target goal of 10km in 50 minutes.

Midweek I started at 5km at 12kmph and started doing longer runs at that pace.

At weekends I started doing an 8km run at 10kmph and started upping the pace each week.

any reason why you would pick 15km? I would pick a race distance as there are hundreds of plans you can follow to improve your time and then if you wanted to do a race for the craic you're already trained up for it